The Validity of Sentiment Analysis: Comparing Manual Annotation, Crowd-Coding, Dictionary Approaches, and Machine Learning Algorithms

195Citations
Citations of this article
409Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Sentiment is central to many studies of communication science, from negativity and polarization in political communication to analyzing product reviews and social media comments in other sub-fields. This study provides an exhaustive comparison of sentiment analysis methods, using a validation set of Dutch economic headlines to compare the performance of manual annotation, crowd coding, numerous dictionaries and machine learning using both traditional and deep learning algorithms. The three main conclusions of this article are that: (1) The best performance is still attained with trained human or crowd coding; (2) None of the used dictionaries come close to acceptable levels of validity; and (3) machine learning, especially deep learning, substantially outperforms dictionary-based methods but falls short of human performance. From these findings, we stress the importance of always validating automatic text analysis methods before usage. Moreover, we provide a recommended step-by-step approach for (automated) text analysis projects to ensure both efficiency and validity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

van Atteveldt, W., van der Velden, M. A. C. G., & Boukes, M. (2021). The Validity of Sentiment Analysis: Comparing Manual Annotation, Crowd-Coding, Dictionary Approaches, and Machine Learning Algorithms. Communication Methods and Measures, 15(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free